Key 9/11 Suspect To Be Tried In New York

[Gold9472]

Pentagon rebuffs request to televise 9/11 trial from Guantanamo

http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2012...-televise.html

Published: November 26, 2012

MIAMI — A surrogate of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on Monday rejected a request by the Sept. 11 defense lawyers to let media organizations televise the Sept. 11 trial from the war court at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

William Lietzau, deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee policy, wrote the defense lawyers that the Pentagon provides ample transparency for the trials through news coverage, a remote viewing site at Fort Meade, Md., and a website that posts transcripts of the pre-trial proceedings within 24 hours of hearings.

"At this time, there are no plans to televise military commission proceedings," Lietzau wrote in a single-page response to the lawyers for five men accused of plotting the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

A total of 13 defense lawyers for the former CIA prisoners now facing military capital penalty proceedings wrote Panetta on Nov. 1 requesting that he use his authority as secretary of defense to enable the broadcasts.

The chief military commissions judge, Army Col. James L. Pohl, said at a hearing earlier this year that only Panetta could make that decision.

Lietzau said he was responding for Panetta.

The lawyers, who defend alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other men, argued that the trial, likely a year away, "is the most significant criminal trial in the history of our country." They argued there's a "pervasive distrust of these proceedings," and that the Guantanamo system has harmed the reputation of the United States.

"Allow the entire country, and world, to observe the proceedings for themselves," they wrote.

Lietzau responded that the war court was following U.S. military courts-martial and federal criminal practice. His letter was dated Nov. 20, but the defense lawyers said they received the reply Monday and provided a copy to The Miami Herald.

Army Brig. Gen. Mark Martins, the chief war crimes prosecutor, has opposed broadcasts in remarks that suggest cameras in the court could harm the dignity of the death-penalty proceedings.

Defense lawyers have said that the public might be surprised to realize how much of the proceedings will be held in closed session.

They also want wider scrutiny on the hybrid nature of the proceedings that borrow from both military and civilian justice.

[Gold9472]

No Justice at Guantánamo

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/op...uantanamo.html

Published: November 29, 2012

To the Editor:

You correctly call on President Obama to fulfill his pledge on his second day in office to “Close Guantánamo Prison” (editorial, Nov. 26). I stood behind President Obama in the Oval Office when he signed the executive order to do so. And as the Navy judge advocate general at the Pentagon on 9/11, I want justice. But Guantánamo has not provided that justice and has not made us safer.

The military commission system at Guantánamo is a make-it-up-as-you-go system, unlike the proven federal court system. I attended the trial of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed at Guantánamo earlier this year, and the court is still grappling with basic questions like whether the Constitution applies.

Guantánamo remains a recruiting tool for terrorists and will remain so until that prison is shuttered. President Obama must fulfill his pledge to me, the American people and those who look to us to lead, and he should veto any further attempts to restrict his ability to do so.

DONALD J. GUTER
Houston, Nov. 27, 2012

The writer, a retired Navy rear admiral, is president and dean of the South Texas College of Law.

[Gold9472]

9/11 suspects may be tried in civilian courts not tribunals

http://www.themoralliberal.com/2012/...not-tribunals/

BY JIM KOURI
11/30/2012

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, had requested a complete study regarding the suitability of incarcerating and trying Guantanamo terrorism detainees on the U.S. mainland and switching jurisdiction for the trials from the military courts back to the civilian courts and the U.S. Justice Department, according to Fox News Channel’s top national security correspondent on Wednesday.

According to FNC’s Catherine Herridge, the study by the investigative arm of the U.S. Congress described the civilian custody and trial of Gitmo detainees “viable.”

Herridge was successful in obtaining a Government Accountability Office document which is the result of “an investigation into whether domestic facilities could house the approximately 170 detainees remaining at the controversial facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.”

After the Obama administration fought tooth-and-nail to prosecute the 9/11 co-conspirators in civilian federal courts, it was decided by President Obama that the detainees would be tried by a military tribunal in order to quell the heated controversy.

“But now with his winning a second-term, Obama and Holder no longer have to worry about criticism from conservatives and moderates and they can closedown Gitmo with the blessings of the far-left,” said political strategist Mike Baker.

Prosecutors from the Department of Justice on April 4, 2011, were ordered by a visibly upset Attorney General Eric Holder to assist the chief prosecutor from the Office of Military Commissions in making the transition from civilian to military justice systems.

“The fact that the 9-11 accused terrorists will now face military tribunals is long overdue and despite the Attorney General’s flawed logic, it is the proper venue to try these accused terrorists,” Jordan Sekulow of the American Center for Law & Justice said in April 2011.

Navy Captain John Murphy, chief prosecutor of the Office of Military Commissions, had said that in light of the attorney general’s decision, his office still intends to swear charges against the detainees in the near future. “I intend to recommend the charges be sent to a military commission for a joint trial,” he said in a written statement.

The trials are already taking place under the Military Commissions Act of 2009, and the captain stressed that just as in civilian trials, those accused are presumed innocent until their guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

In the decision reversing Obama’s policy, Holder blamed Congress for forcing him to use military tribunals to try the terror suspects — including alleged 9-11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed — and said he was reluctantly agreeing to using military commissions in order to move the judicial process along.

“What’s unimaginable is the fact that the Attorney General still believes the federal court system is the proper venue to try accused terrorists and is blaming Congress for getting involved,” said Jordan Sekulow, Attorney and Director of International Operations of the ACLJ.

“It’s clear that many members of Congress and most Americans understand the truth — President Obama’s judicial strategy to place these terror suspects in civilian courts is seriously flawed. We have heard from more than 100,000 Americans who called for these trials to take place in military tribunals — clearly the proper venue for justice,” said Sekulow.

The suspected terrorists remain scheduled to be tried at the Expeditionary Legal Complex at Guantanamo Naval Station in Cuba, a facility designed for just such a proceeding.

Attorney General Eric Holder said that he believes the trials should be held in New York or Virginia, but that Congress imposed restrictions on where the trial could be held, taking the decision from his hands.

“Those restrictions are unlikely to be repealed in the immediate future,” the attorney general said.

[Gold9472]

DOES A MILITARY TRIAL MAKE SENSE FOR KSM?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jameszir...sense-for-ksm/

By James D. Zirin
12/3/2012

A monstrous federal crime occurred on 9/11. To call it heinous would be an understatement. Why isn’t the case being prosecuted in the Southern District of New York since Article III of the Constitution provides for trial in the “State where the …Crimes…[were] committed?” Instead, the 9/11 defendants are getting discovery and making protracted pre-trial motions before a military commission in Guantanamo that will eventually try them for their crimes some years down the road.

September 11 was a horrific criminal act. Commercial airplanes had been turned into weapons of mass destruction. The criminals, who implemented the plot, had perished with their suicidal mission, hoping to be serviced by 700 virgins. Covert operations and drone strikes would take out many of their handlers in the Middle East. After the late Osama bin Laden and his henchman/successor Dr. Ayman Mohammed Rabie al-Zawahiri, the most culpable in the attack was one of bin Laden’s principal lieutenants, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, whom the 9/11 Commission found to be the “principal architect of the 9/11 attacks.” A particularly brutal and vicious killer, KSM is the poster child of the group being brought to trial in Guantanamo more than a decade after the event.

The CIA seized KSM in Pakistan in 2003. Waterboarded, he gave his confession. The CIA removed him to Guantanamo where he has been ever since. Following his arrest, and without waterboarding, he again confessed his responsibility for the attacks, stating he “was responsible for the 9/11 operation, from A to Z.”

KSM confessed to congeries of other terrorist plots and attacks over the past 20 years, including a cameo role in the World Trade Center 1993 bombings, the Operation Bojinka plot, an aborted 2002 attack on the U.S. Bank Tower in Los Angeles, the Bali nightclub bombings, the failed Richard Reid shoe bombing of American Airlines Flight 63, the Millennium Plot, and the decapitation of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. He confessed to cutting off Pearl’s head personally.

Human rights organizations and a number 33 retired generals urged President Obama to order a trial for KSM and the other terrorists in the Southern District of New York rather than before a military commission, authorized under a statute signed by President George W. Bush in 2006, with newly–minted rules and fewer procedural guarantees. They pointed out that 195 international terrorists have been convicted in federal courts since 2001. There are great advantages to a civilian trial from the perspective of our institutions. Article III judges are independent of the executive branch of government. They are “there for life.” Military judges are not immune from command influence as they report ultimately to the President. There will be the inevitable perception (if not the reality) that they will be answerable to their commands if something goes wrong with the trial, the jury fails to convict or the sentence is deemed too lenient. The trial would be public for the entire world to see; the defendants’ rights would be elaborately protected; the procedures would be stern and familiar, based on over two centuries of jurisprudence; and justice would be done.

The defendants’ rights would be elaborately protected; the procedures would be stern and familiar, based on over two centuries of jurisprudence; and justice would be done.

At first, President Obama, a trained lawyer, appeared to favor a civilian trial and then reversed himself for reasons that are largely unclear. Some suggested it was local security issues or else politics. Mayor Bloomberg, however, was willing to have the trial in New York City, though he initially did express concerns about the economic impact on the City, which he later agreed could be obviated. Police Commissioner Ray Kelly was confident that the NYPD could provide the necessary security in Foley Square. So, why not a trial before a civilian court?

As Jane Mayer posted for the New Yorker, “A guilty verdict arrived at in front of the world, in a public trial, with ordinary citizens sitting in judgment of KSM, would be internationally accepted as legitimate, in a way that no military tribunal ever will be.”

Is the cost of the military commissions really worth it? Are there any benefits at all in a military trial that would not be offered by trial in a civilian court? I can’t think of any. We have spent millions paying military lawyers to warm over the rules of the military tribunal, sprinkling into the mix a right here and a right there, such as the commendable effort to provide more transparency by piping in the proceedings via closed circuit TV to the Army base at Fort Meade, Maryland.

We are falling all over ourselves trying to make military trial “fair.” But have we succeeded? Fairness of trial by military tribunal is untested in perception and in reality. It will surely be suspect in the eyes of the world. The Guantanamo trial will be to a jury of 12 military officers none of whom lawyers, so where is the cross section of the community that is at the heart of our jury system?

One of the signal differences involves hearsay evidence. Hearsay is admissible in a military tribunal, which vitiates the constitutional right of an accused “to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” In a military tribunal, coerced statements of witnesses (but not defendants or suspects) are admissible. When coupled with the open floodgate to hearsay, the military trial falls far short of being “fair.”

Under Guantanamo rules, a “battlefield statement” may be legally read to the jury without the appearance of the witness. A coerced “battlefield statement” wherein some waterboarded jihadist told the CIA in Afghanistan that a defendant was a member of the conspiracy would be admissible against that defendant and read to the jury. It is unclear, however, that such a statement to the effect that the particular defendant was innocent of any involvement would be received in evidence. The prosecutor would surely object to the exculpatory declaration as hearsay. Both declarations would be inadmissible in a federal court as unreliable.

The commission proceeding, moreover, will surely be called a sham because the outcome is “heads I win and tails you lose.” If, God forbid, a defendant were acquitted, he would not be set free, as is usually the case in a civilian federal court. Rather, he would be subject to further indefinite detention as an “enemy combatant.” For the government to conduct a fair trial, it must be prepared to free defendants who are acquitted. Otherwise, we have a travesty. That has always been our justice system.

So why do what we are doing? Unless we are prepared to abandon our fundamental values altogether, the rule of law must retain its vitality in war and in peace, even when terrorists topple our buildings into rubble and senselessly murder our citizens in the American homeland.

The dead on 9/11 will only achieve justice with the conviction of KSM and his cohorts after a fair trial, and that conviction must stick. Too bad that the trial will not be in a civilian court. The atrocity occurred on American soil. The United States courthouse, just a stone’s throw from the World Trade Center, is where the wrong to the American people should have been vindicated.

[Gold9472]

Testimony on CIA’s treatment of 9/11 suspects at Guantanamo to remain secret

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...532_story.html

By Peter Finn, Wednesday, December 12, 3:31 PM

A military judge has ruled that any testimony about the CIA’s treatment of Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four other men accused of orchestrating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks will remain secret during their death penalty trial at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

In a ruling dated Dec. 6 and released Wednesday, Army Col. James L. Pohl, the chief judge at Guantanamo, issued a protective order that will safeguard information the government deems classified during military commission proceedings against the five defendants.

Pohl prohibited disclosure of information about the capture of the accused or where they were held for several years before they were transferred to Guantanamo in 2006. He also will keep secret “any information about the enhanced interrogation techniques that were applied to an accused from on or around the aforementioned capture dates through 6 September 2006, including descriptions of the techniques as applied, the duration, frequency, sequencing, and limitations of those techniques.”

Much of this information is in the public domain through reports by, among others, the inspector general of the CIA, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the media. Mohammed, for instance, was held at a secret prison in Poland and waterboarded 183 times after his capture in Pakistan in March 2003.

Protective orders are routine in civilian and military proceedings that involve issues of national security, but the American Civil Liberties Union argued that the government was seeking an overly broad classification of information. Each of the defendants joined the ACLU motion and a group of news organizations, including The Washington Post, filed motions opposing the government’s position.

“We’re profoundly disappointed by the military judge’s decision, which didn’t even address the serious First Amendment issues at stake here,” said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s national security program. “For now, the most important terrorism trial of our time will be organized around judicially approved censorship of the defendants’ own thoughts, experiences and memories of CIA torture. The decision undermines the government’s claim that the military commission system is transparent and deals a grave blow to its legitimacy.”

The ACLU said it would appeal.

Army Lt. Col. Joseph Todd Breasseale, a Pentagon spokesman, said the government was “pleased” with the judge’s ruling. “We will continue to carry out these proceedings in a way that is as transparent as possible,” he said.

The government had argued that it was not acting to prevent the release of embarrassing information but needed to protect sensitive sources and methods.

“Each of the accused is in the unique position of having had access to classified intelligence sources and methods,” military prosecutors said in court papers.

The CIA, FBI and Department of Defense also filed sealed declarations, “explaining how disclosure of the classified information at issue would be detrimental to the national security in that the information relates to the sources, methods, and activities by which the United States defends against international terrorism and terrorist organizations.”

Pohl said he would maintain a 40-second delay between what is said inside the sealed courtroom at Guantanamo and what is heard by the those in a glassed-off public gallery and at sites in the United States, including Fort Meade, where there will be a video and audio feed from the courtroom. If a court security officer believes something classified has been said, he can kill the audio feed or the entire broadcast.

[Gold9472]

Treatment of 9/11 suspects won't be disclosed at trial
A military judge says details of the harsh interrogations of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other terrorism defendants can't be mentioned in court. Human rights advocates object.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,6676750.story

By Richard A. Serrano, Washington Bureau
December 13, 2012

WASHINGTON — The judge in the military commission case against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other suspected Sept. 11 plotters ruled that details of harsh interrogation techniques used on them would be kept secret during their trial, a decision that human rights advocates called an attempt to hide the fact that the men were tortured.

The order, signed by Army Col. James L. Pohl on Dec. 6 and made public Wednesday, represents a clear victory for U.S. military and Justice Department prosecutors in the opening round of pretrial disputes. The first and only trial in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks could begin as soon as next year.

Prosecutors had wanted all information about the five men's arrests and treatment at so-called black sites abroad to remain classified. Pohl agreed even though some government officials have acknowledged that Mohammed, for instance, was waterboarded 183 times after his 2003 capture in Pakistan. Waterboarding simulates drowning; many consider it torture.

Nevertheless, Pohl ruled that "enhanced interrogation techniques that were applied to the accused … including descriptions of the techniques as applied, the duration, frequency, sequencing and limitations of those techniques," would remain classified. Nor will he permit the defendants or their attorneys to discuss those matters in legal papers or open court.

"Names, identities and physical descriptions of any persons involved with the capture, transfer, detention or interrogation" of the accused will not be released, he said, nor will any "information that would reveal or tend to reveal the foreign countries" where the suspects were held before their transfer to the prison at the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Pohl approved a 40-second audio delay in future proceedings to further protect classified information.

His "Protective Order No. 1" marks one of the most significant rulings in a case with worldwide interest in how the U.S. handles terrorism suspects as families await justice for nearly 3,000 loved ones killed in the airliner attacks at New York City's World Trade Center, the Pentagon outside Washington and a farm field in western Pennsylvania.

Defense lawyers, the American Civil Liberties Union and a group of news organizations — including the Tribune Co., owner of the Los Angeles Times — had urged the judge to permit disclosure of this information.

"We're profoundly disappointed," said Hina Shamsi, an ACLU lawyer, adding that she would probably appeal the protective order. "The government wanted to ensure that the American public would never hear the defendants' accounts of illegal CIA torture, rendition and detention, and the military judge has gone along with that shameful plan."

Eugene Fidell, a military law expert at Yale Law School, said many would view the ruling as the government's attempt to try the men in secrecy despite new military commission safeguards under the Obama administration that promised transparency.

"I'm quite uncomfortable with rulings that are this sweeping," he said, "and military law on this subject is not friendly to blanket orders. It's supposed to be done with a scalpel rather than a meat cleaver."

He added that even if the complex trial opened in 2013, it would come 12 years after the attacks.

"We've all been drumming our fingers on the table for this train to leave," he said. "The length of time for the wheels of justice to turn on these prosecutions is scandalous and deeply upsetting to the families of the victims."

But Army Lt. Col. Todd Breasseale, a Pentagon spokesman, said the order detailed the law and reasoning the judge applied after carefully reading legal briefs and hearing oral arguments. And he said it mirrored how classified information was routinely kept out of federal courts in the U.S.

"He has done what all courts do to responsibly handle national security information while also ensuring both that the accused will receive a fair trial and that the proceedings will be as open and public as possible," Breasseale said.

Along with Mohammed, the alleged Sept. 11 mastermind, the other defendants are Ramzi Binalshibh, the alleged plot cell manager; Walid bin Attash, an alleged Al Qaeda training camp steward; and two alleged Al Qaeda financiers, Mustafa Ahmed Hawsawi and Ammar al Baluchi, also known as Ali Abdul Aziz Ali.

[Gold9472]

Judge Rules for Censorship of Torture Testimony at Guantánamo Military Commission

http://www.aclu.org/national-securit...ary-commission

December 12, 2012

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

NEW YORK – The judge presiding over the Guantánamo Bay military commission 9/11 trial has approved the government’s request to censor any testimony from the defendants relating to their torture. The American Civil Liberties Union had challenged the government’s request, arguing that the American public has a First Amendment right to hear the testimony. The ACLU plans to seek further review of the ruling, which was released today.

Military Judge Col. James Pohl ruled that any statements by the defendants concerning their treatment – including torture while in U.S. custody – could be kept from the public as classified, and upheld the continued use of a 40-second delay audio feed of the proceedings.

“We’re profoundly disappointed by the military judge’s decision, which didn’t even address the serious First Amendment issues at stake here. The government wanted to ensure that the American public would never hear the defendants’ accounts of illegal CIA torture, rendition and detention, and the military judge has gone along with that shameful plan,” said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU's National Security Program. “For now, the most important terrorism trial of our time will be organized around judicially approved censorship of the defendants’ own thoughts, experiences and memories of CIA torture. The decision undermines the government’s claim that the military commission system is transparent and deals a grave blow to its legitimacy.”

In its request, the government had contended that any statements by the defendants concerning their “exposure” to the CIA’s detention and interrogation program are classified as “sources, methods and activities” of the U.S. and can be withheld from the public.

In May, the ACLU filed a motion asking the commission to deny the government’s request and to bar a delayed audio feed of the proceedings, or, in the alternative, promptly release an uncensored transcript.

“The problem is not so much the audio delay, but the basis for it,” said Shamsi. “The delay is the tool through which the government unconstitutionally prevents the public from hearing testimony about torture.”

A group of 14 press organizations also filed a motion in support of the media’s right to access the commission's proceedings. Oral argument was held in October.

More information is available at:
http://www.aclu.org/national-securit...mmission-trial

[Gold9472]

Judge: No TV Broadcast of Guantanamo 9/11 Trial

http://abcnews.go.com/International/...1#.UOYmqrZa7Al

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico January 3, 2013 (AP)

A military judge has denied a request to allow television broadcast coverage of the Guantanamo Bay war crimes tribunal for five men charged in the Sept. 11 attacks.

Defense lawyers requested TV coverage of proceedings at the U.S. base in Cuba. But the Defense Department had authorized only closed-circuit broadcast to several military bases in the northeast U.S.

The ruling from Army Col. James Pohl said the court had no authority to allow general broadcast. A Pentagon spokesman declined comment Thursday.

Defense attorney James Connell said the public should be able to view proceedings against five men accused of planning and aiding the attacks. A hearing in the case is scheduled for January but the trial is expected to be at least a year away.

[Gold9472]

Judge restricts more materials in 9/11 trial
Lawyers cannot make public even unclassified materials in the case against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four others, the military judge rules.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,7557441.story

By Richard A. Serrano, Washington Bureau
January 3, 2013, 5:40 p.m.

WASHINGTON — The military judge overseeing the trial for alleged Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four others has ruled that lawyers cannot make public even unclassified materials.

The ruling by the judge, Army Col. James L. Pohl, follows an order on Dec. 6 in which he directed that any evidence or discussion about harsh interrogation techniques used against the five men also be kept secret. He issued the ruling despite accusations by human rights groups that the government was trying to hide the fact the men were tortured.

The latest decision, issued Dec. 20 but just released, marks the second time the judge has sided with government prosecutors at the U.S. naval base on Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in what will probably be the only trial involving alleged participants in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Pohl also ordered the names of the jurors be kept secret.

Upset with the back-to-back rulings, members of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, as well as a consortium of attorneys representing various media outlets, including the Los Angeles Times, are continuing to pursue legal challenges to Pohl's orders.

Under the new order, the attorneys cannot share unclassified information dealing with law enforcement and the military, nor surveillance information, medical records, autopsy reports and the names of the military commission jurors, witnesses and others connected to detention operations.

None of the material, Pohl said, "shall be disseminated to the media." But the judge allowed the disclosure of some unclassified material in pretrial legal briefs and during pretrial hearings, as well as the trial.

In another development, President Obama this week signed the National Defense Authorization Act, which supports overall military operations but also puts on hold his plan to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay — a pledge he repeated in October during his run for reelection.

Instead, the act extends restrictions blocking detainee transfers through the end of September, putting off for at least nine months any attempt by the administration to shut down the prison.

"President Obama has utterly failed the first test of his second term, even before Inauguration Day," said Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union. "His signature means indefinite detention without charge or trial, as well as [that] the illegal military commissions will be extended."

There are 166 prisoners at the detention camp.

Along with Mohammed, the other defendants in the Sept. 11 trial are Ramzi Binalshibh, the alleged plot cell manager; Walid bin Attash, an alleged Al Qaeda training camp steward; and two alleged Al Qaeda financiers, Mustafa Ahmed Hawsawi and Ammar al Baluchi, also known as Ali Abdul Aziz Ali.

[Gold9472]

9/11 case judge issues gag order

http://www.sfgate.com/world/article/...er-4166325.php

Tribune Co.
Updated 10:46 pm, Thursday, January 3, 2013

Washington -- The military judge in charge of the trial for alleged Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four others has ruled that lawyers cannot share even unclassified materials or discuss the information with the press or public, and he further has ordered the names of the jurors be kept secret in the trial.

The ruling by the judge, Army Col. James Pohl, follows an order on Dec. 6 in which he directed that any evidence or discussion about harsh interrogation techniques used against the five men also will be kept secret, despite protests from human rights groups that the government is trying to hide the fact that the men were tortured.

The new ruling, issued Dec. 20 but made public Thursday, marks the second time the judge has sided with government prosecutors at the U.S. Naval Base on Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in their requests for framing the case that will become the first and probably only trial in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and a consortium of attorneys representing various media outlets are continuing to pursue legal challenges to Pohl's orders.